By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - What do yo think will be the hardware specifications of PS5 if it arrives arround 2019-2020?

It will have 12-16gb of Ram probably, with a good GPU and CPU at that year will be cheaper my guess is 4K 30fps for all consoles if not 2k upscale to 4k

Around the Network
walsufnir said:
Oh, this remembers me of a very funny thread from another user:

Well, we also had a discussion recently about the amount of RAM that is going to be used.
My guess is it will be x86-64 again with some custom hardware, nothing spectacular and nothing groundbreaking. Both Sony and MS will go this road from now on.

After the backlash this time round, I could see Microsoft really bumping their specs to not be second best. I think they will be looking at 24GB DDR5 RAM, paired with a much upgraded 8 Core at around 3.5GHz, SSD obviously, and a 5x powerful GPU. Price maybe $449??? No disc drive either.

CrazyGPU said:
Current gen barely gets 1080p but with much better lighting , textures, effects and antialiasing over a PS3. If the GPU is 8 times stronger than the PS4 as Captain_Tom points out, then it would have arround 1.84 x 8 or 15 Teraflops of computing power. If a Geforce GTX 980 or a Radeon R9 290X is playing 4K (mid to high quality, not ultra) and have arround 5 Teraflops and 240-320 GB/s bandwith, then a 15 Teraflops GPU with 1 TB/s Bandwith would be enough for 4k mantaining the quality of actual textures. I dont know if it can be done at 400 USS.

Currently, you don't know if it could be done currently. By the next release, probably

Since the PS4 CPU is worse than the PS3 CPU .... maybe they will have a PS1 CPU  with 32 cores combined with 128GB RAM and a AMD 600 Series GPU?

Captain_Tom said:

-The thing is 4K isn't as big of a deal as one would initially think.  If a gpu's architecture is optimized correctly for a given resolution it can make a big difference.  For instance the 290X is only ~30% stronger than the 7970 in 1080p, but in 4K it becomes 50%+ at times and even matches the 980.  The 390X is going to use HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus and it is only the first gen of HBM.  Plus AA really won't be needed anymore so that will help quite a bit.

-I did say 16-32GB of RAM so I think it could be somewhere in-between.  I believe 16GB would be enough to skimp by a little better than the PS3 did, and 32GB is far more than enough just like the PS4.

-Remember SSD's are expensive now, but their prices are changing rapidly.  2 years ago a 1TB SSD was $4000, a year ago it was $1000, and now it is under $500.  They really might be at current HDD prices by 2019.

-They went with an 8-core at 1.6GHz because they had no other choice.  AMD is the only vendor who can provide both a decent GPU and CPU in one package.  The bulldozer family was a complete failure to the point that clock-for-clock the Jaguar cores in the PS4 are just as fast as the big desktop processors AMD is currently trying to get rid of.  Then consider that 2xjaguar clusters only use 40-50w and the 1.6GHz models are dirt cheap and have a respectable amount of horsepower behind them.  If used correctly a 1.6GHz 8-core is just as fast as a 3.2GHz quad-core, and better at lower framerates with lots of data onscreen.  What gaming devices tend to push as much crap as possible at the expense of a lower framerate? -> Consoles.


Now you could make my same argument for why they would go with 16 cores instead of 8 faster ones, but things change a little.  Utilizing 6-cores in a game as been done for a long time since the 360 and PS3 used 6-cores for gaming anyways (2-cores in the PS4 are used for background tasks).  However 16 has never been utilized that well in gaming so far.  Also by the time the PS5 comes out AMD's low-power cpu's should be ~3-4GHz (The newer ones are already at 2.4).  I am just assuming Sony will continue to use the same types of products, and in 5 years I don't think many things will even be buyable below 3GHz lol.

Thanks, that sounds very reasonable. I still think 16GB is a bit low in 5 years. Laptops already ship with 16GB now. 24GB maybe, 8 for the OS and as a memory cache, 16GB available for games.  AA will still be needed in 4K. This gen has made a 16x jump in memory as opposed to the 8x jump the gen before. Last-gen was memory starved though, and an OS with video features is pretty memory hungry. If you go by 8x increase from original xbox, 32GB would be the next step. Yet skimping by on 16GB of very fast memory shared memory would probably deliver better optimized games.

As for HDD, I expect marketing to be the determining factor there. Sure SSD is getting cheaper yet the cheapest 1TB SSD is $419 currently, vs $50 for a 1TB HDD, $78 for 2TB. That difference won't be eradicated in 5 years. A cheap 2TB model, and a more decked out 4TB model seems more likely than a 1TB SSD model next gen. It's simply the easiest way to save on costs.
It's hard to tell, some already predicted SSD's to catch up to HDD late last year or this year, others still expect a factor 6 difference in 2020 for large capacities. Since next gen will be even more about digital only consoles, I expect capacity to win over speed.

Around the Network

~15TFLOPS GPU is pretty much common number that's been speculated for quite some time now, mostly based on previous gen jumps.

Not convinced it's enough for native 4K though - current high end gfx cards perform at 1/3 at that res compared to 1080p, and while 15TFLOPS would be certainly more than enough to render games natively in 4K, actual "juice after resolution jump" left to enhance visuals over current gen would be be only around 2.5x - which is quite lower than 5x or so in this gen.

Hence, I do agree with 1440p estimates - it's 4K divided by 1.5 (which I'm guessing good in-built hw upscalers would have less problems with), and it actually gives around the same "juice after resolution jump" as last to current gen jump.

Other option might be anamorphic 1920x2160, which is only around 10% more pixels than 1440p and keeps vertical pixels intact.

I hope it will be 10 times more powerful (unlike PS4 is 6-5 times more powerful then PS3) but keeping the price, and small size balance, and not too big like the original PS3.

and i hope it will be backward compatibility with PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4

i hope it will use USB 4.0 and high speed port for PCie hard disk, blue tooth 3.0 and wifi direct

still using blue ray or dual layer one, or if there is a new media it will be cheaper unlike PS3.

i don't mind x86/X64

I dont think it will be 10 time more powerfull, but I hope it will be 6-7 times more powerfull. that would give it arround 12-14Teraflops, enough for 4k at high quality. 32 GB of RAM would be nice. And probably a 2 TB Hard disk drive. SSD is too expensive, but it might replace a disk like that. A bandwith of 0.8-1 TB/s would be great too. I would like a CPU at least 2 times faster than the current. Anyway, its going to be a long time, I guess six years after PS4 Launch, 2019. But if Microsoft and Nintendo continue selling a lot less, then next gen could come earlier.

SvennoJ said:
Captain_Tom said:
CrazyGPU said:

The PS4 is a great console, It has a CPU with 8 little cores that achieves a Core I3 like multithreading performance, a nice 18 core shader graphic card derived from Radeon HD 7870-7850 that gives 1,84 Tflops and 8 GB of DDR5 with 176 GB/s of Bandwith. With these specifications it can run almost every game at 1080p 30 FPS. It could have been a little more powerfull, but its enough for 1080p mantaining a good console size and power consumption. 

Now, what do you think the next PS5 will bring us in terms of hardware specifications? I think next gen console should be able to handle at least 4k Resolution at 30 FPS to take advantage of new TVs.  What do you think should be the capabilities and hardware of the next sony console  if it comes arround 2019-2020 to convince you to buy it? 

2019 would be the latest I think it might come out (Expect sooner).  But when it does I would expect:

-Something like an R9 770X or whatever would be like 8 times stronger than the 7870 in the PS4

-16 or 32GB of HBM memory bringing the bandwidth to 1 or 2 TB/s

-An 8-core CPU clocked at 3 - 4.0 GHz with much better IPC than the PS4's cpu, and a second quad-core cpu for background tasks.

-Full backwords compatibility with the PS4.

-Expect the PS5 to perform as well at 4K as the PS4 does at 1080p now with the obvious advantage of much better effects/AI/Physics.  60 FPS should also be at least decently easier for the PS5 to do than it is for the current consoles (Due to the faster CPU and RAM).

-Possibly a 1 TB SSD for fast load times.  Expect at least a hybrid solution.

What makes you think that's enough to do 4K at 30fps? Thats a 4x increase in resolution, while ps4 already has trouble maintaining 30 fps with a 2.25 increase in resolution.

An 8x faster GPU with 10x faster memory bandwidth would handle the 4x increase in resolution, unless the extra power is used on bigger effects.

With the pixels being finer, they can reduce some things like anti-aliasing as well.  For example on a regular PC monitor, you need LCD sub-pixel font rendering to make text look nice, but on a Retina resoution screen the pixels are so fine that you don't need sub-pixel fonts.

My 8th gen collection

Captain_Tom said:

Kirin_gaming said:

 This is actually true but, we have to remember that the 4k we have today won't be the same 5 years later,it'll actually be much more harder to run.I think it is very unlikely we are going to see the PS5 running native 4k since I believe we aren't gonna see a middle range card capable of runnign 4k at 60fps in the next 5 years,consoles have to be cost effective,so I don't think they would put a middle-high range card inside the console.

We are just going to have to disagree on that.  5 years is a very long time.

Actually yeah,I take that back.Sometimes I forget that there are other quality settings besides ultra. 

So now, I'm guessing we could see it running 4k at medium-high settings,I hope you are right about the cpu though, a powerful 8-core cpu would be more than enough for that resolution, a 16-core would be interesting as well, so that some cores are used for background tasks and the ones left are all used for gaming.